What I would like to know is how Portland has a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why said "atmosphere" cannot be promulgated throughout the US?

John Forester is of the belief that one has to be anti-car for such a situation to exist; that the pro-bicycle situations in certain European cities exists primarily due to excessive automotive costs... IE fuel and other costs. Yet Portland is apparently an example of a pro-cycling city here in America with the same automotive infrastructure and costs as the rest of the nation, but it is perceived as pro-cycling.

What does Portland have that gives it a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why can't that situation be extended to other places in America?

I suppose the other question is: Does Portland really have a "healthier cycling atmosphere?" Are there any real numbers to show that what is happening in Portland are due to what the cycling community is doing there, or is the "atmosphere" just a false impression? For instance what really is the situation with regard to police enforcement in say the deaths you mentioned? And what about the laws in general?

Yes all this is connected to the LAB issues of this thread... for indeed if change can be brought about in a positive way for cyclists by an organization like the LAB... then perhaps all this political pandering is worthy of our attention, whereas on the other hand, if it is just simply some group of administrators finding a niche in which they can practice their trade with little actual regard for the outcome... well that is another situation all together.

BTW hope you enjoy the move.

Um, your question is rather vague and I honestly don't know the answer. There are many things that have influenced Portland's cycling culture. It's modal share has almost doubled in the last decade, while Eugene is continually shrinking. I think it has more to do with the almost weekly cycling events in Portland, many small frame builders converging within the city (and a recent frame builder's show) and the urban alt culture, among other things. Eugene specifically is a less dense, more suburbanized city with a weakening downtown culture and vibrancy and of course a large state university (UO). The MUTs here form the "core" of our bicycle transportation, which provides the only alternative for riding into downtown to riding on main arterials (which unfortunately have trash-filled bike lanes and some militant drivers). Cycling culture here is mostly a small niche of road racers, an "exclusive" mountain bike club and a handful of commuters. The rest are college students, who usually have no choice but to ride their bikes. Cycling is dying here, it's kinda sad.

I think issues with laws, police, accidents, etc. are still only a periphery issue in Portland, but I think they will start to come into the bigger picture of safety and legal rights. But that will probably take a lot, hopefully not too many more accidents or carnage. The lack of discussion over engineering and laws of the recent two fatalities (right hooks in BL) is disturbing, and I'm worried it will take more such accidents to stimulate some real discussion. The BTA is also very pro-bike lane, to the point that they've made some serious mistakes with their implementation. A number of their projects are "complete-the-streets" type, where they want to throw bike lanes in everywhere. One particularly dangerous one is on Hall Blvd. decending SE towards Greenway. They put a narrow bike lane (a number of years ago) on a ~6% downgrade and to the right of right-turning traffic (turning onto Greenway), insanity. Interstate road and Greeley is similar (not as steep) where Brett Jarolimek was killed. If you stay in the BL, you have to run a gauntlet of right-turning cars and trucks. Another woman was hit there a few weeks after Brett was killed and went to the hospital, and she claimed to have been riding pretty slow (~15mph). They closed Greeley after that (no right turns) to "investigate" the problem, but I think it should be pretty obvious. I don't think any of the motorists were cited, despite the strange yielding laws (John Allen describes this as elevating bike lanes to the legal status of crosswalks). You can't have BLs on steep hills, even AASHTO with it's overall weak recommendations regarding bikeway designs says a 4ft. wide bike lane has a designed speed of no more than 20 mph. That's not even considering intersection problems.

So we'll see, I might get more involved with the BTA to try and steer them away from the most dangerous bike lanes and designs and give some input, but just like on this board, it will probably be a minority viewpoint. As far as Oregon's laws, Fred Oswald (of LAB reform) gave Oregon a tentative D-rating for it's bicycle traffic laws (might be an F+) right now.

I give you credit, Diane, for believing what you write, rather than being a deliberate liar. However, in view of what I have written so many times, and the record of my actions, you are claiming that I am a liar. Well, either I am a liar, or you are deluded, persistently delusional. The historic record speaks for itself, you are deluded.

Ya, just like you being on record as anti-anti-motoring is not pro-motoring. If that is not delusional I don't know what is. Im sorry but you are also well noted when you dont have a logical leg to stand on you resort to insults in violation of forum guidelines.

But the bottom line premise still exists... there are those that advocate education only, and at the same time deny facilities.

Whereas facilities promoters don't tend to deny education.

So one group of "advocates" tends to deny the work of the other group of advocates... but the other group doesn't deny the work of the first. Thus we have the "great divide" in cycling advocacy.

Umm yes and no. Within the halls of Government where we need action to take place I see strong tendencies to undermine education and deny the usefulness of education and too many advocates just accept any small victory that they can get. IMHO the pressure needs to be turned up on the education side as a lot of Governments are not getting our message.

Precisely why I, and others like me, have abandoned LAB and at this point would almost rather see it fall into the hands of the LAB reformers and move to inevitable extinction like a weary old dinosaur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

This is such negative thinking about the very premise of LAB reform it exemplifies perfectly why they are pulling the momentum of present LAB down the drain. You see yourselves as the most persecuted, the most misunderstood and the most right.

I was partly lamenting on my experiences. Please describe the forward momentum that LAB currently has going, I've seen nothing but bad things come of them lately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

#1- Lots of us ride "vehiculary". We do it every day. We've done for as many miles and for as many years as any of the LAB reformers. And we do it just as well. The issue is not "vehicular cycling". There's nothing wrong with learning to ride a bicycle as a vehicle on the road.

That's not the issue I was discussing. Simply riding "vehicularly" and advocating it as a recognized legal standard are two different things. I think many more people are VC (to some extent) than get involved with advocacy of the safety merits and legal rights. That's fine, and I just recognized that fact in my previous post. There's also plenty of people that see VC advocacy as destroying bike lanes, MUTs and throwing innocent women and children into heavy suburban arterial traffic (ok that's a bit of an exaggeration), but the smarter VC advocates recognize that immense public support is probably impossible (because of the aforementioned superstitions), so achieving equal status in the eyes of the law and law enforcement is probably the only way to allow those that choose to ride VC to do so without legal harassment. Everyone else can ride however they wish to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

#2- Why is it on one hand that LAB reformers claim that LAB doesn't represent cyclists and yet claim to be such a minority among cyclists? This I don't get.

I think it's quite simple, those that really care about legal rights and equality and the means with which to obtain them are the minority, which some people would call the real cyclists, but that probably comes off as elitist. But LAW traditionally comprised almost exclusively of cyclists like this; the current situation seems vague, with membership decreasing and member control of the board weakened, I really have no idea where the majority of LAB members stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

some of what you say above I can understand and relate to- to a degree. But talk about "cyclist-inferiority"- your complaints reek of it. I ride every day in a city that would not rate as terribly "bicycle friendly" and am subject to many of the "discriminations" you cite in your post but when it comes down to it I just ride my bike. When we give up our cars it doesn't take long to forget that driving a car has tremendous disadvantages that could almost seem like persecution and discrimination. Let's say I drive into Harvard Square in Cambridge to Christmas shop. I find a 1 hour parking meter and I run back to feed it every hour. Only to discover that I have a parking ticket anyway- it's not legal to keep feeding the meter, legally I should drive around and find a new spot. As a cyclist I see those inconveniences as part of why I don't drive much. But when I do use a car it feels so wrong. But places like Harvard Square are none to friendly to cars, bikes or pedestrians but with some creative redesign it could accommodate 2 out of 3 by reducing the number of cars that can come into the area. LAB reform would promote that the cyclists just ride on the road with the cars, neglect the needs of pedestrians- ain't none of our business- and not see bicycling as part of and solution to a larger picture and problem. Organizations like "Livable Streets" would address the issues more wholistically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

Doing the same things on your bike as you did when you had a car- this is an illusion. A bicycle is a vehicle but it's not the same as a car. When I can get my bike to go from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, ride in the snow and rain without rain gear, mittens and not be cold or get wet, carry 3-4 other passengers and still go up hill at 55 mph, get rammed from the side by a car going 30 and get off my bike uninjured to inspect the damage I'll try to do the same things on my bike as I do in my car. Other than that- it's a vehicle when it's on the road but it ain't no car.

I suffer from "cyclist-inferiority"? By wanting equal legal rights so that motorists would receive fair punishment for illegal driving that causes the hypothetical (and rare) accident you describe? And please spare me any "dead right" diatribe.

This is the apathy I was talking about. You seem to recognize the limitations of both cycling and driving a car, but you lump inferior legal rights into the modal disadvantages of cycling. You seem content with living with that, I'm not. I suppose we have different views as well as to the utility of cycling. I think I've done pretty well overall, the only problems I've encountered are unfriendly motorists/roads. The only real limitations I've encountered are long-distance travel, which I knew would be more difficult. Amtrak and Greyhound work alright for me, and I don't travel much in any case at this point in my life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

yeah, riding vehicularly is obviously right on most roads. How "vehicularly" is interpreted is open to a wide range, whether it's always a pleasant experience to ride vehicularly on some roads is open to interpretation as well. I don't particularly like feeling like I'm fighting for my right to the road and fighting for my life on certain narrow, high traffic volumed poorly designed roads and highways. And why the correctness of riding vehicularly precludes support of facilities escapes me.

The situation isn't as cut and dry as you describe. The issue of "facilities" is debatable. On a road like that I'd say widen the road and get a "share the road" campaign going, if necessary, others would say bike lanes. VC supports facilitating cyclists rather than simply building facilities. Sure, some bike lanes work OK, but the one's in my area are the worst of the worst, and exemplify the damage bike lanes can do to bicycle transportation when engineering is thrown out the window.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman

Finally, I'm glad that there are cyclists so insistent on maintaining our rights to ride on the roads. They are a necessary part of the voice of cycling advocacy it's just a shame when they think they should be the only voice.

Man, you are delusional. Maybe you should take your own advice and start seeing in shades of grey? LAB reform is focusing on many different issues, and the reality is, like I said before, they will form a minority within LAB if at all. There will be plenty of "other" viewpoints. The "only" voice you speak of it what LAB currently is, strengthened by the appointed board members.

Buzzman, I honestly can't figure out where you stand. On one hand you denigrate LAB reform and their views, yet admire those cyclists that stand up for our rights as if it's an admirable job people other than yourself should do; at no point do you connect the two together and admit that the LAB reform is intent on doing just that. Maybe you're just too politically jaded to separate the real issues from ideology, I don't know. For example, Fred Oswald has taken to the tedious task of evaluating state laws as they pertain to cyclists and has made some headway in Ohio, albeit slowly. He put together a cyclist-friendly program, which is a lot more detailed than the requirements for BFC. In 2006 Ohio repealed many of it's discriminatory laws, but it seems to have taken a lot of work. He is not paid to do this, so far as I can tell.

Among all of their criticism of LAB, they have also provided detailed recommendations and have taken many of the issues upon themselves when LAB fails to act (like the above examples), yet they make sure to commend LAB when the do act (most recently, I believe for LAB's modest resurgence of "share the road" campaigns). From all that I've read an learned from e-mail correspondence, they are doing a whole lot of the dirty work, the stuff that's difficult to do and obtains meager results for large amounts of effort. This is all stuff LAB does not currently do.

I give you credit, Diane, for believing what you write, rather than being a deliberate liar. However, in view of what I have written so many times, and the record of my actions, you are claiming that I am a liar. Well, either I am a liar, or you are deluded, persistently delusional. The historic record speaks for itself, you are deluded.

I donno John... you're the one that's talking out of both sides of your mouth with your continued support for motoring and those within the motoring community that believe that high speed roads are the ultimate answer.

You also are the one that equates nearly all pro cycling advocacy as an anti motoring stance... when clearly if one is using a bike there is physically no way to drive a car at the same time. So while a trip made by bike is pro bike, it is not anti car... except in your mind.

Further, nobody else here on BF has made up their own psychological maladies... the latter which puts you right into the same category as some delusional conspiracy theorists.

Diane on the other hand happens to prefer quiet bike paths for her commutes to work... and that is pretty consistent with folks that appreciate quiet walks. Hardly delusional at all.

But the bottom line premise still exists... there are those that advocate education only, and at the same time deny facilities.

Whereas facilities promoters don't tend to deny education.

So one group of "advocates" tends to deny the work of the other group of advocates... but the other group doesn't deny the work of the first. Thus we have the "great divide" in cycling advocacy.

This kind of specious illogical argument can be produced only by people whose agenda cannot operate in any other way.

One group advocates training of cyclists in safe operation while also advocating facilities and social structures designed to best accommodate such operation. The other group advocates special bicycle facilities that contradict safe operation and is, necessarily therefore, very reticent about training cyclists to disobey their desired facilities as is require for safe operation.

This kind of specious illogical argument can be produced only by people whose agenda cannot operate in any other way.

One group advocates training of cyclists in safe operation while also advocating facilities and social structures designed to best accommodate such operation. The other group advocates special bicycle facilities that contradict safe operation and is, necessarily therefore, very reticent about training cyclists to disobey their desired facilities as is require for safe operation.

No John... the group that advocates facilities for cyclists (you mean bathrooms, right?) really wants separate structures, but the auto centric mentality of folks like you and politicians supported by folks like you only allow the simplest bicycle structures (lines of paint) while endorsing free space for autos in the form of subsidized property (on street parking)...

I donno John... you're the one that's talking out of both sides of your mouth with your continued support for motoring and those within the motoring community that believe that high speed roads are the ultimate answer.

You also are the one that equates nearly all pro cycling advocacy as an anti motoring stance... when clearly if one is using a bike there is physically no way to drive a car at the same time. So while a trip made by bike is pro bike, it is not anti car... except in your mind.

Further, nobody else here on BF has made up their own psychological maladies... the latter which puts you right into the same category as some delusional conspiracy theorists.

Diane on the other hand happens to prefer quiet bike paths for her commutes to work... and that is pretty consistent with folks that appreciate quiet walks. Hardly delusional at all.

Genec, you know little of the facts but present absurd arguments as if you were well informed. I have never advocated motoring and for thirty-five years I have fought against those motorists and those motoring organizations who wish to impose their view of cycling upon cyclists. Furthermore, I have never "equate[d] nearly all pro cycling advocacy as an anti motoring stance..." I would hardly do that, would I, since I am an advocate for cyclists myself. I suppose that you think so because your concept of pro-bike advocacy is so tied up with advocacy of bikeways that you cannot separate the two. Bicycle paths cannot provide an adequate bicycle transportation system in an American city. Bicycle lanes contradict the rules of safe operation according to the rules of the road, and therefore create dangers. Of course some of us, the despised elitists, are sufficiently well-informed to obey the rules of the road instead of the bike-lane stripe, but that knowledge fails to penetrate to the general public, be they either motoring or cycling at the time.

I oppose that advocacy, for whatever purpose, that makes cycling harder to understand, more difficult, more confusing, and more dangerous, for both cyclists and motorists. That's an entirely reasonable proposition, is it not? I see two parties producing this dangerous advocacy. One party is the motoring organizations who invented the bikeway system to suit their idea of the low status of cyclists. The other party is that of the bicycle advocates whose motivation is to reduce motoring; they have adopted the motorists' program because they think it is popular with the general public. I fight against both of these views.

As for Diane, if you had understood anything I have written about her and her views, I have never said that she is deluded for desiring a quiet route to work. I wrote, specifically, that she was deluded about my views, despite the written and historical record of them.

You consider that my description of the acts and words of the bicycle activists makes me one of those despised and deluded conspiracy theorists. That's interesting, considering the continued demonstration of such that occurs in most of these posts, including the one of yours upon which these comments are directed. If you bicycle advocates had managed to produce thoughts that were both logical and in accord with reality, such a description, as a psychological malady, would never had been made necessary.

This kind of specious illogical argument can be produced only by people whose agenda cannot operate in any other way.

One group advocates training of cyclists in safe operation while also advocating facilities and social structures designed to best accommodate such operation. The other group advocates special bicycle facilities that contradict safe operation and is, necessarily therefore, very reticent about training cyclists to disobey their desired facilities as is require for safe operation.

Ah yes arguments based on a holistic approach is a really bad agenda but arguments that rely solely on a made up psychosis are far superior.

Genec, you know little of the facts but present absurd arguments as if you were well informed. I have never advocated motoring and for thirty-five years I have fought against those motorists and those motoring organizations who wish to impose their view of cycling upon cyclists.

John I only know what I have seen over the last 35+ years with regard to cycling, and what I have seen recently with regard to your actions... the latter which is clearly and quite publicly displayed in the the ADC website.

No John... the group that advocates facilities for cyclists (you mean bathrooms, right?) really wants separate structures, but the auto centric mentality of folks like you and politicians supported by folks like you only allow the simplest bicycle structures (lines of paint) while endorsing free space for autos in the form of subsidized property (on street parking)...

More illogical argument in a thicket of barely understandable prose. But I will guess at your meaning.

You assert that cyclists such as myself allow only bike lanes instead of what you desire. Considering that I have been fighting bike lanes since I saw them being invented, that's absurd.

You also assert that cyclists such as myself endorse on-street parking. If any of us do so, that is entirely independent of our views about cycling. Would I object if parking were prohibited along the street on which I live? Certainly; I have close familiarity with such restrictions, and I dislike it when my guests, or my neighbors' guests, have no convenient way to accept our invitations.

You also assert that bicycle advocates "really want[s] separate structures", and that cyclists have prevented you from obtaining such. That's a silly argument, to say that we vehicular cyclists have such political power. The plain problem with "separate structures" is that there's no practical way to produce such in the urban areas where there might be sufficient traffic to justify them. We vehicular cyclists don't have to say anything; the engineering, financial, and social difficulties speak for themselves.

You also assert that bicycle advocates "really want[s] separate structures", and that cyclists have prevented you from obtaining such. That's a silly argument, to say that we vehicular cyclists have such political power. The plain problem with "separate structures" is that there's no practical way to produce such in the urban areas where there might be sufficient traffic to justify them.

And yet oddly enough there is plenty of room for more roads, more freeway lanes and more parking... None of which have ever alleviated any congestion problem.

Oh and your earlier metaphor of hiways to phone lines shows how little you know of telecommunications... where circuit switching and other methods long ago eliminated the one line per user problems.

John I only know what I have seen over the last 35+ years with regard to cycling, and what I have seen recently with regard to your actions... the latter which is clearly and quite publicly displayed in the the ADC website.

I would have to say your support of the ADC is perhaps the clearest "advocation for motoring" I have ever seen.

Endorsement of the American Dream Coalition? I have never endorsed that organization's goals as such. Indeed, there are some views of their members with which I profoundly disagree, but which are outside the scope of bicycling discussions. However, and this is important for bicycling discussions, I think that there are several ways in which they can be used to support the cause of cyclists.

The most obvious way is that they resist those changes to roads that make vehicular travel more difficult and more dangerous, changes which are commonly and ostensibly advocated as advantages to cyclists when, in fact, they make cycling more difficult and more dangerous.

The next most obvious way is that they support suburbia and suburban living, which is commonly and ostensibly denigrated as being disadvantageous to cyclists by those whose interest is reduction of motoring. Given the choice between living in a walking or streetcar city in which bicycle transportation is more useful or in a suburbia optimized for motor travel but in which bicycle transportation is less useful, the majority of people (in which I include myself) prefer suburbia. The choice is not about cycling; it is about all the other attributes that come along with the options. The objectionable part of this aspect of bicycle advocacy is the insistence that people should be forced to live in ways they don't like to suit the desires of bicycle advocates.

In short, the sport of cycling and the travel of bicycle transportation are only parts of life that have to be integrated into the other parts in the pattern that is individually most satisfying without stepping on other people's toes.

And yet oddly enough there is plenty of room for more roads, more freeway lanes and more parking... None of which have ever alleviated any congestion problem.

Oh and your earlier metaphor of hiways to phone lines shows how little you know of telecommunications... where circuit switching and other methods long ago eliminated the one line per user problems.

So, you are a believer in the induced traffic superstition. Well, that has been debated at length in the technical transportation press, with the result that it is considered to be no more than a superstition. The basic idea is that people largely move themselves and their goods for purposeful reasons, and when those reasons are satisfied there is no more demand. There is plenty of evidence for such a concept in those roads that are not filled with traffic. The increase in long-time demand for travel services occurs through general growth in population (and income in those places where this is significant), and only a small part of that increase is due to travel that is induced simply because road room is available.

I have no idea of your reference to my supposed equation of highways to phone lines; I have never employed such an analogy in technical discourse, although maybe in casual conversation (though I don't remember such).

I suffer from "cyclist-inferiority"? By wanting equal legal rights so that motorists would receive fair punishment for illegal driving that causes the hypothetical (and rare) accident you describe?

No, in fact, I agree with you about the legal rights issue-you'll get no argument from me there. Though the only accident I described- a from the side hit was in reference to the type of collision one might receive at an intersection- not all that rare a collision.

You suffer from "cyclist inferiority" because your focus is on:

"equal treatment socially"

you feel that the current system is

"incredibly discriminatory"

you feel that

"motorists certainly harass me with impunity"

and

"the only problems I've encountered are unfriendly motorists/roads"

Now, you must please forgive me for being so facetious in making reference to your "cyclist inferiority." It's just so ironic that should those same complaints be made by someone advocating for facilities the argument from the anti-facilities (VC+) is that they are suffering from a delusional phobia. So my use of the term was more in jest- something that does not come across quite as well in internet forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parking Meter

I really have no idea where the majority of LAB members stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parking Meter

Do you even do any research into this stuff? Come on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parking Meter

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You seem bent on describing those cyclists that ride in a vehicular manner and feel the right to ride on the road is something worth fighting for as a "minority"- why concentrate on separating them out of the general cycling public? Just as VC will certainly make use of bikeways when they suit them so will most cyclists wish to exercise their right to the road once in a while. Why not get in a mindset that unifies as opposed to one that divides cyclists. And I never said that advocating for our right to ride on the road is something I was unwilling to do. I have done it and will continue to do so and I support my cycling brethren who feel it is a priority. I just don't happen to agree with their assumption that supporting bikeways will be the end all be all of those rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parking Meter

Please describe the forward momentum that LAB currently has going,

As I said, I gave up my membership in LAB years ago due to the in fighting and obstructionist strategies employed by some members who I felt had a narrow and non-progressive vision. I don't think they've made all that much progress since.

A good example is the endless go-arounds you can read here in A & S in BF. I don't see that many of the bikeway promoting crowd saying they don't believe in VC or they don't think cyclists have a right to the road. And it's not like all of us who support facilities fit the model of "casual cyclist". Many of us have lots of road miles under our belts and intend to ride many more of them. I've found other organizations with less focus on the exclusive rights of road cyclists to be far more worth my time. They are more progressive, open minded and actually get some things accomplished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parking Meter

I suppose we have different views as well as to the utility of cycling.

I'm so curious as to how you think we differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parking Meter

I honestly can't figure out where you stand.

If it's unclear from what I said here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzman

LAB continued, for much of that time, to focus more or less exclusively on the rights and education of road cyclists and for that I appreciate their efforts but it did little to promote cycling nor did it promote weaving cycling into the fabric of our transportation infrastructure or future models- in fact many of the LAB leaders saw this as a "pipe dream" and not worth pursuing and actively worked to block such efforts.

I will be even more specific for you here:

I stand for the rights of cyclists on the road

I stand for providing clear information to cyclists, motorists and other road users (ie. professional truckers, cab drivers etc) that educate them as to the rights of cyclists and practices that help the cyclist to use the existing road system as safely as possible

BUT

I also believe in the redesign of many of our urban centers to make them more conducive to pedestrian, cyclist and other alternatives to their current auto-centric design, which I feel is strangling many of our cities.

I believe in promoting use of available public space and areas like abandoned rail beds for use as cyclist exclusive (or MUP's) bikeways.

I support the implementation of well designed bike lanes when and if appropriate as well as the restriping and/or widening of existing highways and roads, where possible in order to accommodate cyclists and other slower moving traffic.

I support the integration of bicycling with the public transportation system and would encourage, states, municipalities and federal agencies to provide facilities to accommodate the mixed use of bicycling and public transport.

Unlike many of the VC proponents I do not find these things to be mutually exclusive. Read John Forester's responses to many of my posts in these forums and you'll see the degree to which he opposes much of what I have suggested above- if that is an example of LAB reform I want nothing to do with it.

You write, buzzman, that you have always cycled in the vehicular style and appreciate that some people and organizations are interested in preserving the right to do so. I take it that you have good reasons for cycling in the vehicular style, but if you have such good reasons, why is it that you are not advocating for a road system that is better suited to cycling in the vehicular style?

I never said I did not believe nor support modifications to the existing road system that would allow for more effective sharing of the road with cyclists who ride as a vehicle. I just don't put all my eggs in that basket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester

I don't consider that your advocacy of bike paths is a conflict with vehicular cycling, because bike path traffic does not operate according to the rules of the road, and in some locations and times bike paths provide a useful transportation service. I do say, though, that in the typical urban area bike paths cannot provide a bicycle transportation system, so that advocacy for such should limit itself to only that which is useful.

I could get nit-picky here but will allow that we are in general agreement on the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester

In distinction to advocacy of bike paths is your advocacy of bike lanes, which clearly contradict the rules of the road and therefore contradict vehicular cycling. Since bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, then, in those locations and times when the contradiction exists, you must either follow the rules of the road and disobey the bike lane, or you must obey the bike lane and disobey the rules of the road. I don't know which you prefer to do, but the contradiction exists. So I ask you: Why do you advocate bike lanes instead of advocating vehicular cycling on roads that are better suited to vehicular cycling?

As far as I'm concerned a bike lane is simply a lane with a designated use exclusively for cyclists- a kind of "safe zone". Often I find that I am riding in pretty close proximity to where I might ride even if there were not a designated bike lane. In practicality bike lanes, especially in the US, are often treated with disregard by some motorists, double parking delivery trucks, pedestrians and the like. Therefore the lane is rendered unusable at times and the cyclist must move out of that lane and make use of other lanes, which are shared. The law may even clearly state and protect the exclusivity of the lane but motorists will ignore the law and block the lane in any case. But all travel lanes are subject to abuse by motorists. When not using the bike path into Boston I take Commonwealth Avenue. As it runs parallel to Newbury Street the right lane is often blocked by double parked cars, UPS trucks, contractors trucks, cabs etc. there is no bike lane but the same problem exists. When it does I simply shift into the other lane. I would do the same if it were a bike lane.

Here is an example of how I ride in Manhattan using a bike lane and the shared travel lanes. Perhaps you might disagree but I think it's an example of a combination of using a bike lane and riding vehicularly. If you can show me a similar video of you riding in similar circumstances I would be more willing to acquiesce to your "expertise" since I would believe you were coming from a place of personal experience and not theory nor conjecture.

I think it's quite simple, those that really care about legal rights and equality and the means with which to obtain them are the minority, which some people would call the real cyclists, but that probably comes off as elitist.

Yes, there are some self appointed experts and legal wannabes who claim they hold the only "really care" card and truly believe that they are the only "Real Cyclists". And yes it is elitist; as well as pompous, arrogant and obnoxious. Carry on.

Unlike many of the VC proponents I do not find these things to be mutually exclusive. Read John Forester's responses to many of my posts in these forums and you'll see the degree to which he opposes much of what I have suggested above- if that is an example of LAB reform I want nothing to do with it.

Read the postings of some of the members of LAB-Reform and it is quite apparent that LAB-Reform is hardly more than a stalking-horse of a few strident Vehicular Cyclists and disgruntled LCI's for using the LAB organization once again as a vehicle for promotion of John Forester Brand Education Programs.

Here is an example of how I ride in Manhattan using a bike lane and the shared travel lanes. Perhaps you might disagree but I think it's an example of a combination of using a bike lane and riding vehicularly. If you can show me a similar video of you riding in similar circumstances I would be more willing to acquiesce to your "expertise" since I would believe you were coming from a place of personal experience and not theory nor conjecture.

I observed that video sequence. All it shows is the straight-ahead view from a cyclist's viewpoint of riding in normal city traffic. Nothing unusual there, and the traffic is not particularly heavy. The video shows nothing of the cyclist's traffic technique, only the path that he followed, sometimes in a bike lane and sometimes outside a bike lane, acting as if the bike-lane stripe is not there, which is precisely what I have always recommended. That is, the vehicular cyclist sometimes obeys the bike-lane stripe and sometimes disobeys it, which is the point that I have always made and with which you think that you disagree. Aside from the trip around Columbus Circle, the cyclist made no turns at all, seemed never to encounter turning traffic. So what's your point?

If you want to discover my traffic-cycling technique, you have only to view either Bicycling Safely on the Road or Effective Cycling Video. I wrote and directed both of these, and did some of the cycling also.

As far as I'm concerned a bike lane is simply a lane with a designated use exclusively for cyclists- a kind of "safe zone". Often I find that I am riding in pretty close proximity to where I might ride even if there were not a designated bike lane. In practicality bike lanes, especially in the US, are often treated with disregard by some motorists, double parking delivery trucks, pedestrians and the like. Therefore the lane is rendered unusable at times and the cyclist must move out of that lane and make use of other lanes, which are shared. The law may even clearly state and protect the exclusivity of the lane but motorists will ignore the law and block the lane in any case. But all travel lanes are subject to abuse by motorists. When not using the bike path into Boston I take Commonwealth Avenue. As it runs parallel to Newbury Street the right lane is often blocked by double parked cars, UPS trucks, contractors trucks, cabs etc. there is no bike lane but the same problem exists. When it does I simply shift into the other lane. I would do the same if it were a bike lane.

snips

[/URL]

Your justification for bike lanes is that they form a safe zone for cyclists. Safe from what, buzzman?

You also argue that even where bike lanes are present, the cyclist needs to operate in the vehicular cycling manner. The cyclist who took the video that you referenced showed no signs of being intimidated by his own actions, by whether or not he was in the bike lane. So much as appeared merely showed that he moved outside the bike lane whenever he saw fit to do so.

So you don't need bike lanes. Similarly, any person who operates in the vehicular manner doesn't need bike lanes. Who are the persons who you think need bike lanes? If there aren't such persons, why do you advocate bike lanes?

I stand for providing clear information to cyclists, motorists and other road users (ie. professional truckers, cab drivers etc) that educate them as to the rights of cyclists and practices that help the cyclist to use the existing road system as safely as possible

BUT

I also believe in the redesign of many of our urban centers to make them more conducive to pedestrian, cyclist and other alternatives to their current auto-centric design, which I feel is strangling many of our cities.

I believe in promoting use of available public space and areas like abandoned rail beds for use as cyclist exclusive (or MUP's) bikeways.

I support the implementation of well designed bike lanes when and if appropriate as well as the restriping and/or widening of existing highways and roads, where possible in order to accommodate cyclists and other slower moving traffic.

I support the integration of bicycling with the public transportation system and would encourage, states, municipalities and federal agencies to provide facilities to accommodate the mixed use of bicycling and public transport.

Unlike many of the VC proponents I do not find these things to be mutually exclusive. Read John Forester's responses to many of my posts in these forums and you'll see the degree to which he opposes much of what I have suggested above- if that is an example of LAB reform I want nothing to do with it.

Well, there is a problem that buzzman's stands contain mutual contradictions. First, the least controversial.

His support for rails-to-trails conversions is non-controversial; these don't affect road cycling. However, I oppose the kind of rtt propaganda advocating these as the safer alternative to bicycle transportation on the road; some are safer, some are not; some are transportationally useful, some are not.

His support for mixed-mode bike-mass-transit integration is somewhat controversial, the degree of controversy depending on the additional cost to the public for each such trip, which varies greatly from insignificant to something like ten times the ticket cost. The utility of each such trip depends, of course, on the opinion of the cyclist.

Now for buzzman's more controversial stands.

On one hand, he supports a policy that cyclists have rights to use the roadway, but he doesn't say the manner in which cyclists should be allowed to use the roadway. Does he mean only in the vehicular manner, or does he mean in some other manner as well?

However, he supports spreading the information "as to the rights of cyclists and practices that help the cyclist to use the existing road system as safely as possible", which strongly implies, though he doesn't say so, that the public should be made aware that cyclists should operate in the vehicular manner. In other words, he supports public knowledge that cyclists should operate in the vehicular manner. Does this mean that this is a public policy? If not, how does he explain the contradiction between approving more than one method of using the roadways?

Buzzman supports both bike lanes, with the qualification of being well-designed and appropriate, and what appear to be wide outside lanes and roadway widening to accommodate slow-moving traffic. From my point of view, the wide outside lane stand is not controversial because wide outside lanes do not contradict the rules of the road. But buzzman's support for bike-lanes contains its own contradictions. First, such lanes contradict the rules of the road. But, considering his own qualifications of being well-designed and where appropriate, these qualifications are extremely controversial. The characteristic of being well-designed means that the object is very good at performing its intended purpose. However, nobody knows what the purpose of a bike lane is, so that without knowing that purpose one cannot say whether any particular example is well-designed and, equally, one cannot set design standards for such objects. And without knowing what the purpose is, one cannot determine the appropriate locations for installing such objects. So, on one hand, buzzman supports facilities that improve roadway operation in the manner accepted as best, while on the other hand he supports facilities that apparently are based on contradicting such operation although they have never been properly defined to specify whether they do or don't.

Another of buzzman's stands is the following statement: "I also believe in the redesign of many of our urban centers to make them more conducive to pedestrian, cyclist and other alternatives to their current auto-centric design, which I feel is strangling many of our cities." What does one make of such a muddled statement? What can one make of such? For example, Houston TX is often cited as being the American city with the most auto-centric design, yet Houston is also never cited as being strangled by that design. On the other hand, if buzzman is referring to his home city of Boston, the problems associated with that city are those caused by the fact that it has about the least auto-centered pattern of any large American city, being a walking city that got improved only to the streetcar level.

To put things rather crudely, if the congestion of motor traffic is the problem, then there are two ways to solve that. The first is to increase the capacity of the road system to handle the traffic generated by drivers who want to arrive. The second is to reduce the attraction of the city so that no more drivers will be attracted than the road system will carry without congestion. As has been remarked in similar discussions long before this, either solution involves wrecking-ball therapy.

It is apparent that buzzman has some other idea in mind, no matter how fuzzy. I guess that he is thinking of cities such as Boston. He would like to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic than is done at present. For pedestrian traffic, as I recall, the center of Boston has plenty of sidewalks, and plenty of traffic signals. To what else does buzzman refer? For bicycle traffic, admittedly the motor-traffic congestion also delays cyclists to some extent. Wide outside lanes would permit a limited improvement in the ability of cyclists to filter forward; bike lanes would do the same, but with a greater increase in confusion and danger. Both would require substantial allocation of roadway width, which is very limited in such cities as Boston.

I suspect that when buzzman refers to "the redesign of many of our urban centers" he intends to mean designs that greatly restrict the motor traffic that is permitted to enter. Well, that's fine, except that it will meet strong objections from those whose business activity depends on access by motor traffic. If they can do so, they will move elsewhere, thus carrying out what I referred to above as the second method of reducing congestion.

My point is that a bike lane does not preclude riding vehicularly. I've ridden in NYC with and without bike lanes. I prefer having the bike lane. As can be observed you can see that I sometimes have to circumvent motorists illegally blocking the lane but NYC traffic tends to congest into chaos and the lane is often preferable to filtering through that traffic.

I did not say you would not agree but that you might. I'm sorry but despite your lengthy posts I sometimes don't quite garner the gist of your meaning either. So what's your beef with bike lanes if they can be used as you see me using them in that video? I'm certainly not the only cyclist in NYC who prefers the city now that they have been introduced. My only complaint about them is the blatant disregard with which many motorists use them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester

It is apparent that buzzman has some other idea in mind, no matter how fuzzy. I guess that he is thinking of cities such as Boston. He would like to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic than is done at present. For pedestrian traffic, as I recall, the center of Boston has plenty of sidewalks, and plenty of traffic signals. To what else does buzzman refer? For bicycle traffic, admittedly the motor-traffic congestion also delays cyclists to some extent. Wide outside lanes would permit a limited improvement in the ability of cyclists to filter forward; bike lanes would do the same, but with a greater increase in confusion and danger. Both would require substantial allocation of roadway width, which is very limited in such cities as Boston.

I suspect that when buzzman refers to "the redesign of many of our urban centers" he intends to mean designs that greatly restrict the motor traffic that is permitted to enter. Well, that's fine, except that it will meet strong objections from those whose business activity depends on access by motor traffic. If they can do so, they will move elsewhere, thus carrying out what I referred to above as the second method of reducing congestion.

I'll continue to add more specifics. Below are some of the efforts Livable Streets Alliance has successfully made on one of the streets I use daily. The reconstruction of Commonwealth Avenue is almost complete between BU West and Kenmore Square. What's interesting is that the restriping has not yet been done and it's been an excellent study in how traffic responds to the widening of the road and the lanes without striping. The traffic has always been dangerous on Comm Ave.- the widening without striping has definitely contributed to an increase in traffic speed and aggressive driving. It will be interesting to note whether the bike lane slows and manages the traffic effectively. The drivers are particularly aggressive at the BU Bridge intersection where cyclists must take what amounts to a center lane position to safely go straight down Comm Ave with fast moving traffic moving on the cyclists' left and right. Without striping it's been pretty amazing to experience the sudden increase in aggression on the part of drivers' who have been coping with the slow downs due to construction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livable Streets Alliance

Commonwealth Avenue to have Bicycle Lanes. Over a year ago, LivableStreets Alliance kicked off an advocacy effort to improve what we believed to be a dangerous design for the reconstruction of the intersection at Comm. Ave. and the BU Bridge. In collaboration with WalkBoston, Adaptive Environments, and MassBike, we have been diligently working with the City to get changes that would make the area safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. One result of our efforts has been a commitment by the City to design bicycle lanes as part of the effort to improve bicycle accommodation in the area. LivableStreets will be given the opportunity to review the plan when it is drafted. Another win has been the agreement by the City to consider closing the second turn lane that has been added to improve car flow at the expense of pedestrians. Say thank you to Boston for listening and taking action! Email btd@cityofboston.gov.

For more info on what kinds of efforts are being made in Boston I suggest you visit the Livable Streets Alliance- particularly if my posts appear to be too "fuzzy" in terms of objectives and means to achieve them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester

it will meet strong objections from those whose business activity depends on access by motor traffic. If they can do so, they will move elsewhere...

Please refer to me evidence of efforts like those suggested by Livable Streets causing a reduction in property values or "business activity" in a city like Boston or NYC.